Antonio M. Lacy

Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND Although early reports on laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC) in patients with colon cancer suggested that it reduces perioperative morbidity, its influence on long-term results is unknown. Our study aimed to compare efficacy of LAC and open colectomy (OC) for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer in terms of tumour recurrence and survival. METHODS From November, 1993, to July, 1998, all patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon were assessed for entry in this randomised trial. Adjuvant therapy and postoperative follow-up were the same in both groups. The main endpoint was cancer-related survival. Data were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. FINDINGS 219 patients took part in the study (111 LAC group, 108 OC group). Patients in the LAC group recovered faster than those in the OC group, with shorter peristalsis-detection (p=0.001) and oral-intake times (p=0.001), and shorter hospital stays (p=0.005). Morbidity was lower in the LAC group (p=0.001), although LAC did not influence perioperative mortality. Probability of cancer-related survival was higher in the LAC group (p=0.02). The Cox model showed that LAC was independently associated with reduced risk of tumour relapse (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.82), death from any cause (0.48, 0.23-1.01), and death from a cancer-related cause (0.38, 0.16-0.91) compared with OC. This superiority of LAC was due to differences in patients with stage III tumours (p=0.04, p=0.02, and p=0.006, respectively). INTERPRETATION LAC is more effective than OC for treatment of colon cancer in terms of morbidity, hospital stay, tumour recurrence, and cancer-related survival.

Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND The safety and short-term benefits of laparoscopic colectomy for cancer remain debatable. The multicentre COLOR (COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection) trial was done to assess the safety and benefit of laparoscopic resection compared with open resection for curative treatment of patients with cancer of the right or left colon. METHODS 627 patients were randomly assigned to laparoscopic surgery and 621 patients to open surgery. The primary endpoint was cancer-free survival 3 years after surgery. Secondary outcomes were short-term morbidity and mortality, number of positive resection margins, local recurrence, port-site or wound-site recurrence, metastasis, overall survival, and blood loss during surgery. Analysis was by intention to treat. Here, clinical characteristics, operative findings, and postoperative outcome are reported. FINDINGS Patients assigned laparoscopic resection had less blood loss compared with those assigned open resection (median 100 mL [range 0-2700] vs 175 mL [0-2000], p<0.0001), although laparoscopic surgery lasted 30 min longer than did open surgery (p<0.0001). Conversion to open surgery was needed for 91 (17%) patients undergoing the laparoscopic procedure. Radicality of resection as assessed by number of removed lymph nodes and length of resected oral and aboral bowel did not differ between groups. Laparoscopic colectomy was associated with earlier recovery of bowel function (p<0.0001), need for fewer analgesics, and with a shorter hospital stay (p<0.0001) compared with open colectomy. Morbidity and mortality 28 days after colectomy did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION Laparoscopic surgery can be used for safe and radical resection of cancer in the right, left, and sigmoid colon.

Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer : long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer has been proven safe, but debate continues over whether the available long-term survival data justify implementation of laparoscopic techniques in surgery for colon cancer. The aim of the COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial was to compare 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival after laparoscopic and open resection of solitary colon cancer. METHODS Between March 7, 1997, and March 6, 2003, patients recruited from 29 European hospitals with a solitary cancer of the right or left colon and a body-mass index up to 30 kg/m(2) were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic or open surgery as curative treatment in this non-inferiority randomised trial. Disease-free survival at 3 years after surgery was the primary outcome, with a prespecified non-inferiority boundary at 7% difference between groups. Secondary outcomes were short-term morbidity and mortality, number of positive resection margins, local recurrence, port-site or wound-site recurrence, and blood loss during surgery. Neither patients nor health-care providers were blinded to patient groupings. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00387842. FINDINGS During the recruitment period, 1248 patients were randomly assigned to either open surgery (n=621) or laparoscopic surgery (n=627). 172 were excluded after randomisation, mainly because of the presence of distant metastases or benign disease, leaving 1076 patients eligible for analysis (542 assigned open surgery and 534 assigned laparoscopic surgery). Median follow-up was 53 months (range 0.03-60). Positive resection margins, number of lymph nodes removed, and morbidity and mortality were similar in both groups. The combined 3-year disease-free survival for all stages was 74.2% (95% CI 70.4-78.0) in the laparoscopic group and 76.2% (72.6-79.8) in the open-surgery group (p=0.70 by log-rank test); the difference in disease-free survival after 3 years was 2.0% (95% CI -3.2 to 7.2). The hazard ratio (HR) for disease-free survival (open vs laparoscopic surgery) was 0.92 (95% CI 0.74-1.15). The combined 3-year overall survival for all stages was 81.8% (78.4-85.1) in the laparoscopic group and 84.2% (81.1-87.3) in the open-surgery group (p=0.45 by log-rank test); the difference in overall survival after 3 years was 2.4% (95% CI -2.1 to 7.0; HR 0.95 [0.74-1.22]). INTERPRETATION Our trial could not rule out a difference in disease-free survival at 3 years in favour of open colectomy because the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference just exceeded the predetermined non-inferiority boundary of 7%. However, the difference in disease-free survival between groups was small and, we believe, clinically acceptable, justifying the implementation of laparoscopic surgery into daily practice. Further studies should address whether laparoscopic surgery is superior to open surgery in this setting.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic surgery as an alternative to open surgery in patients with rectal cancer has not yet been shown to be oncologically safe. The aim in the COlorectal cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR II) trial was to compare laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer. METHODS A non-inferiority phase 3 trial was undertaken at 30 centres and hospitals in eight countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with rectal cancer within 15 cm from the anal verge without evidence of distant metastases were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic or open surgery in a 2:1 ratio, stratified by centre, location of tumour, and preoperative radiotherapy. The study was not masked. Secondary (short-term) outcomes-including operative findings, complications, mortality, and results at pathological examination-are reported here. Analysis was by modified intention to treat, excluding those patients with post-randomisation exclusion criteria and for whom data were not available. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00297791. FINDINGS The study was undertaken between Jan 20, 2004, and May 4, 2010. 1103 patients were randomly assigned to the laparoscopic (n=739) and open surgery groups (n=364), and 1044 were eligible for analyses (699 and 345, respectively). Patients in the laparoscopic surgery group lost less blood than did those in the open surgery group (median 200 mL [IQR 100-400] vs 400 mL [200-700], p<0·0001); however, laparoscopic procedures took longer (240 min [184-300] vs 188 min [150-240]; p<0·0001). In the laparoscopic surgery group, bowel function returned sooner (2·0 days [1·0-3·0] vs 3·0 days [2·0-4·0]; p<0·0001) and hospital stay was shorter (8·0 days [6·0-13·0] vs 9·0 days [7·0-14·0]; p=0·036). Macroscopically, completeness of the resection was not different between groups (589 [88%] of 666 vs 303 [92%] of 331; p=0·250). Positive circumferential resection margin (<2 mm) was noted in 56 (10%) of 588 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group and 30 (10%) of 300 in the open surgery group (p=0·850). Median tumour distance to distal resection margin did not differ significantly between the groups (3·0 cm [IQR 2·0-4·8] vs 3·0 cm [1·8-5·0], respectively; p=0·676). In the laparoscopic and open surgery groups, morbidity (278 [40%] of 697 vs 128 [37%] of 345, respectively; p=0·424) and mortality (eight [1%] of 699 vs six [2%] of 345, respectively; p=0·409) within 28 days after surgery were similar. INTERPRETATION In selected patients with rectal cancer treated by skilled surgeons, laparoscopic surgery resulted in similar safety, resection margins, and completeness of resection to that of open surgery, and recovery was improved after laparoscopic surgery. Results for the primary endpoint-locoregional recurrence-are expected by the end of 2013. FUNDING Ethicon Endo-Surgery Europe, Swedish Cancer Foundation, West Gothia Region, Sahlgrenska University Hospital.

The Long-term Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial of Laparoscopy-assisted Versus Open Surgery for Colon Cancer

Objective:The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcome of laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC) and open colectomy (OC) for nonmetastatic colon cancer. Methods:From November 1993 to July 1998 all patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon were assessed for entry in this single center, clinically randomized trial. Adjuvant therapy and postoperative follow-up were similar in both groups. The primary endpoint was cancer-related survival and secondary endpoints were probability of overall survival and probability of being free of recurrence. Data were analyzed according the intention-to-treat principle. Results:Two hundred and nineteen patients entered the study (111 LAC group and 108 OC group). The median follow-up was 95 months (range, 77–133). There was a tendency of higher cancer-related survival (P = 0.07, NS) and overall survival (P = 0.06, NS) for the LAC group. Probability of cancer-related survival was higher in the LAC group (P = 0.02) when compared with OC. The regression analysis showed that LAC was independently associated with a reduced risk of tumor relapse (hazard ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.23–0.94), death from a cancer-related cause (0.44, 0.21–0.92) and death from any cause (0.59, 0.35–0.98). Conclusions:LAC is more effective than OC in the treatment of colon cancer.

A Randomized Trial of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer is widely used. However, robust evidence to conclude that laparoscopic surgery and open surgery have similar outcomes in rectal cancer is lacking. A trial was designed to compare 3-year rates of cancer recurrence in the pelvic or perineal area (locoregional recurrence) and survival after laparoscopic and open resection of rectal cancer. METHODS In this international trial conducted in 30 hospitals, we randomly assigned patients with a solitary adenocarcinoma of the rectum within 15 cm of the anal verge, not invading adjacent tissues, and without distant metastases to undergo either laparoscopic or open surgery in a 2:1 ratio. The primary end point was locoregional recurrence 3 years after the index surgery. Secondary end points included disease-free and overall survival. RESULTS A total of 1044 patients were included (699 in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 345 in the open-surgery group). At 3 years, the locoregional recurrence rate was 5.0% in the two groups (difference, 0 percentage points; 90% confidence interval [CI], -2.6 to 2.6). Disease-free survival rates were 74.8% in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 70.8% in the open-surgery group (difference, 4.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.9 to 9.9). Overall survival rates were 86.7% in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 83.6% in the open-surgery group (difference, 3.1 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.6 to 7.8). CONCLUSIONS Laparoscopic surgery in patients with rectal cancer was associated with rates of locoregional recurrence and disease-free and overall survival similar to those for open surgery. (Funded by Ethicon Endo-Surgery Europe and others; COLOR II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00297791.).

Short-term outcome analysis of a randomized study comparing laparoscopic vs open colectomy for colon cancer

The authors examined the impact of the laparoscopic approach on the early outcome of resected colon carcinomas. The role of laparoscopic techniques in the treatment of colon carcinomas is questionable. Previous studies have suggested technical feasibility of surgical resections of these cancers by laparoscopic means and have implied a benefit to laparoscopic technique for patients undergoing colorectal resections. A prospective, randomized study was conducted comparing laparoscopic assisted colectomy (LAC) open colectomy (OC) for colon cancer. We present the preliminary results in relation to the short-term outcome and judge the feasibility of the laparoscopic procedure to as a way of performing accurate oncologic resection and staging. Benefit has been demonstrated with LAC in this setting. Passing flatus, oral intake, and discharge from hospital occurred earlier in LAC- than OC-treated patients The mean operative time was significantly longer in the LAC group than in the OC group. The overall morbidity was significantly lower in the LAC group. No significant differences were observed between both groups in the number of lymph nodes removed or the pathological stage following the Astler-Coller modification of the Dukes classification. The laparoscopic approach improves the short-term outcome of segmental colectomies for colon cancer. However, the further follow-up of these patients will allow us to answer in the near future whether or not the LAC may influence the long-term outcome.

Bacterial translocation of enteric organisms in patients with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND/AIMS The aim of the study was to investigate the prevalence and associated risk factors for bacterial translocation in patients with cirrhosis, a mechanism involved in the pathogenesis of bacterial infections in experimental cirrhosis. METHODS Mesenteric lymph nodes were obtained for microbiological culture from 101 patients with cirrhosis and from 35 non-cirrhotic patients. RESULTS Enteric organisms were grown from mesenteric lymph nodes in 8.6% of non-cirrhotic patients. In the 79 cirrhotic patients without selective intestinal decontamination, the prevalence of bacterial translocation significantly increased according to the Child-Pugh classification: 3.4% in Child A, 8.1% in Child B and 30.8% in Child C patients (chi2 = 6.106, P < 0.05). However, translocation by Enterobacteriaceae, the organisms commonly responsible for spontaneous bacteremia and peritonitis in cirrhosis, was only observed in 25% of the cases. The prevalence of bacterial translocation in the 22 cirrhotic patients undergoing selective intestinal decontamination, all Child-Pugh class B and C, was 4.5%. The Child-Pugh score was the only independent predictive factor for bacterial translocation (odds ratio 2.22, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS Translocation of enteric organisms to mesenteric lymph nodes is increased in patients with advanced cirrhosis and is reduced to the level found in non-cirrhotic patients by selective intestinal decontamination.

Laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticulitis decreases major morbidity rates: a randomized control trial. Short-term Results of the Sigma-trial

Background:No randomized controlled trial has compared laparoscopic sigmoid resection (LSR) to open sigmoid resection (OSR) for symptomatic diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon. This study tested the hypothesis that LSR is associated with decreased postoperative complication rates as compared with OSR. Methods:This was a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-arm, randomized controlled trial. Eligible patients were randomized to either LSR or OSR. Endpoints included postoperative mortality, and complications were classified as major and minor. The generator of the allocation sequence was separated from the executor. Blinding was ensured using an opaque wound dressing to cover the abdomen. Symptomatic diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon was defined as recurrent disease Hinchey I, IIa, IIb, symptomatic stricture, or severe rectal bleeding. The decision to discharge patients was made by independent physicians blind to the allocation sequence. Data were analyzed according to the intention to treat principle. Results:From 2002 to 2006, 104 patients were randomized in 5 centers. All patients underwent the allocated intervention. Fifty-two LSR patients were comparable to 52 OSR patients for gender, age, BMI, ASA grade, comorbid conditions, previous abdominal surgery, and indication for surgery. LSR took longer (P = 0.0001) but caused less blood loss (P = 0.033). Conversion rate was 19.2%. Mortality rate was 1%. There were significantly more major complications in OSR patients (9.6% vs. 25.0%; P = 0.038). Minor complication rates were similar (LSR 36.5% vs. OSR 38.5%; P = 0.839). LSR patients had less pain (Visual Analog Scale 1.6; P = 0.0003), systemic analgesia requirement (P = 0.029), and returned home earlier (P = 0.046). The short form-36 questionnaire showed significantly better quality of life for LSR. Conclusions:LSR was associated with a 15.4% reduction in major complication rates, less pain, improved quality of life, and shorter hospitalization at the cost of a longer operating time.

Hepatocellular carcinoma and cirrhosis. Results of surgical treatment in a European series.

OBJECTIVE The authors analyze the outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and cirrhosis who underwent liver resections. BACKGROUND Liver resection is the best option for HCC arising from hepatic cirrhosis. The experience of Western centers with these patients is shorter than the Asian series. METHODS Forty-eight consecutive patients with cirrhosis and HCC who underwent liver resections were studied after a similar diagnostic and therapeutic process. Survival and cumulative recurrence were calculated according to pathologic findings. RESULTS Factors influencing survival at 3 years were as follows: type of resection, absence of vascular invasion, size of the tumor, absence of satellite nodules, and the number of nodules. Factors influencing the rate of recurrence at 3 years were the presence of vascular invasion and the presence of satellite nodules. Patients with favorable prognostic factors have a good survival rate with an acceptable recurrence rate. CONCLUSIONS Identification of prognostic factors may help in the selection of the appropriate treatment for these patients with HCC and cirrhosis.